http://articles.cnn.com/2012-07-02/tech/tech_social-media_google-plus-not-dead_1_google-last-week-google-friend-social-network?_s=PM:TECH
Hmm... CNN with respectable names like Martin Savidge and the like, and out of a three network cable viewership race with prolly at best less then a million and a half viewership a day for one program, out of 300 million plus population, Cable news of this sort is certain well aimed at popular readership. I know easier to criticize more modest ventures of social communication, certainly if you guys were held to the same socially serving profitable standards that Facebook retains, you guys might be worried about your market viability likewise?
I mean having the decades of name luxury without account to viewership or site traffic all the same, means that you modestly care with respect to the audience that you cater, but then gauging the potential of viewership and readership here and otherwise lack luster performance otherwise, one wonders about media in general.
Why I'd almost wonder whether Google + site traffic is on par with some of site and cable news traffic? May not be good, but relatively speaking: The pot calling the kettle black?
Or laughably when you have a supposed expert 'dietician' on your program that describes healthy vegetarian dietary eating typically as a bag of greens and a few apples. Yeah, maybe vegetarians eat this way somewhat, but the equivalent of lobbing a hunk of uncooked tofu on a plate and calling this a viable day in day out diet makes one only laugh all the more, certainly you could do a little better then that with some feigned catering, and it should seem quite plausible that your expert could care little other then paying lip service to the proclaimed diet they were espousing.
Hmm... CNN with respectable names like Martin Savidge and the like, and out of a three network cable viewership race with prolly at best less then a million and a half viewership a day for one program, out of 300 million plus population, Cable news of this sort is certain well aimed at popular readership. I know easier to criticize more modest ventures of social communication, certainly if you guys were held to the same socially serving profitable standards that Facebook retains, you guys might be worried about your market viability likewise?
I mean having the decades of name luxury without account to viewership or site traffic all the same, means that you modestly care with respect to the audience that you cater, but then gauging the potential of viewership and readership here and otherwise lack luster performance otherwise, one wonders about media in general.
Why I'd almost wonder whether Google + site traffic is on par with some of site and cable news traffic? May not be good, but relatively speaking: The pot calling the kettle black?
Or laughably when you have a supposed expert 'dietician' on your program that describes healthy vegetarian dietary eating typically as a bag of greens and a few apples. Yeah, maybe vegetarians eat this way somewhat, but the equivalent of lobbing a hunk of uncooked tofu on a plate and calling this a viable day in day out diet makes one only laugh all the more, certainly you could do a little better then that with some feigned catering, and it should seem quite plausible that your expert could care little other then paying lip service to the proclaimed diet they were espousing.
No comments:
Post a Comment